Sachin Tendulkar weighs in on conflict of interest issue


Earlier this week, Sachin Tendulkar was served a ‘conflict of interest’ notices by DK Jain, BCCI’s ombudsman-cum-ethics officer.

The notice was in regard to conflict of interest, that said that Tendulkar is allegedly performing dual roles of support staff and member of Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC). The complaint was filed by Sanjeev Gupta of Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association.

But Tendulkar has now fired back and denied all allegations and said that he receives no monetary benefits from being from the Mumbai Indians franchise and neither does hold any decision-making role in the team.

At the outset, the Noticee (Tendulkar) denies the contents of the Complaint in totality (except the statements specifically admitted herein). No part of the Complaint should be deemed to be admitted by the Noticee for lack of specific denials,” Tendulkar wrote.

The Noticee (Tendulkar) has received no pecuniary benefit/compensation from the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise in his capacity as the Mumbai Indians ‘ICON’ since his retirement, and is certainly not employed with the Franchise in any capacity.”

He does not occupy any position, nor has he taken any decision (including selection of team players) which could qualify as being in governance or management of the Franchise. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interest, either under the BCCI Rules or otherwise,” He said.

He also said that he was appointed as the member of cricket advisory committee back in 2015, way before his involvement with the Mumbai based franchise.

The Noticee was appointed to the panel of the Cricket Advisory Committee (“CAC”) in the year 2015. The Hon’ble Ethics Officer will appreciate that the Noticee was named as the ‘ICON’ for Mumbai Indians much prior to his empanelment with the CAC – which fact has always been in the public domain.

Tendulkar further clarified that he doesn’t serve as the advisor or holds any decision making capability and neither does he recieves any monetary compensation from the Mumbai Indians.

The Complaint wrongly assumes that the Noticee’s association with the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise (“Franchise”) is in the capacity of “governance”, “management” or “employment” – thereby attracting a conflict under Rule 38 (4).

His role is limited to providing guidance to the Franchise team by sharing his insights, learnings and working closely with the younger members in the team to help them realise their true potential.”


IPL 2019 Day 19: MI vs KXIP Preview



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here